RE: AMG's new turbo V8

[XJ Flyer]

Max_Torque said:

XJ Flyer said:

Max_Torque said:

Basically, engine torque is independent of cylinder bore, but engine power is not. This is because to make power you need revs, and maximum revs depend upon piston velocity, that depends upon piston stroke.

If that was right then a Triumph 2.5 6 cylinder and a Jag 6.0 XJRS V12 would be no more powerful than the 2.0 6 or 5.3 V12.It's that old torque v horsepower argument again.The fact is adding to the stroke dimension increases torque and as we all know more torque at equivalent engine speed means more power.IE torque multiplied by engine speed.In general it's always best to maximise the stroke dimension which can usually be done without compromising an engine's ability to rev to the point where a short stroke wins out over a relatively longer one.

Sorry, but it is right.

Torque or more specifically BMEP, is independent of cylinder bore, because piston area and crank throw cancel each other out for a given cylinder capacity. Obviously, a large capacity engine will make more torque for a given specific torque output.

Torque increases with stroke because it provides more leverage for the piston at the crank.Therefore just an increase in stroke will increase BMEP all else being equal.Power is just a measure of torque x engine speed and stroke can be increased to relatively high amounts without having any real detrimental effect on engine speed.So more torque same engine speed = more power.Which is why the 6.0 L V12 XJRS and the Triumph 2.5 6 are more powerful engines than the 5.3 V 12 or 2.0 6 using exactly the same bore size.

[DonkeyApple]

XJ Flyer said:

DonkeyApple said:

Mosdef said:

If an ageing V12, or any V12 for that matter, could be made as efficient as a more modern V8, I'm sure AML wouldn't be bothering with AMG. Doesn't it just come down to the below?

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehic...

I can't see how any small manufacturer will get round this on their own.

Re: supercharger v turbocharger, there is a difference but both give an undesirable result in my opinion: poor throttle response and far too much torque low down.

The real issue at AM is that while all other prestige firms have been investing in their next gen power plants to be globally compliant for all vital sales markets and forming partnerships that allow better corporate averages or populist models to generate production volumes AM have spent the last decade moving as much capital as possible from the balance sheet to various pension plans. So much so that they haven't enough money or revenue to do anything other than import a drivetrain going forward.

But, let's be really honest, AM haven't had their own engine since the end of the 80s and have sold more cars per annum in the last decade than almost total production previously so I don't think the market cars at all outside of the UK. So long as Sheik Igor Ping still views it as a product to maintain the vital new money task of informing random strangers that he is considerably richer than yow, it'll all be fine.

If they haven't had 'their own engine' since the old V8 then exactly what/who else was it that has used their V12.While the fact is,like Jaguar,Aston was never intended to be a large 'volume' producer.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 16th June 14:46

You ought to ask the chap who signed the 5 year supply extension with Ford this time last year.

[anonymous-user]

XJ Flyer said:

Torque increases with stroke because it provides more leverage for the piston at the crank.Therefore just an increase in stroke will increase BMEP all else being equal.Power is just a measure of torque x engine speed and stroke can be increased to relatively high amounts without having any real detrimental effect on engine speed.So more torque same engine speed = more power.Which is why the 6.0 L V12 XJRS and the Triumph 2.5 6 are more powerful engines than the 5.3 V 12 or 2.0 6 using exactly the same bore size.

Have another think about that^^^ and get back to me ;-)

[DonkeyApple]

Dave Hedgehog said:

DonkeyApple said:

Mosdef said:

If an ageing V12, or any V12 for that matter, could be made as efficient as a more modern V8, I'm sure AML wouldn't be bothering with AMG. Doesn't it just come down to the below?

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehic...

I can't see how any small manufacturer will get round this on their own.

Re: supercharger v turbocharger, there is a difference but both give an undesirable result in my opinion: poor throttle response and far too much torque low down.

The real issue at AM is that while all other prestige firms have been investing in their next gen power plants to be globally compliant for all vital sales markets and forming partnerships that allow better corporate averages or populist models to generate production volumes AM have spent the last decade moving as much capital as possible from the balance sheet to various pension plans. So much so that they haven't enough money or revenue to do anything other than import a drivetrain going forward.

But, let's be really honest, AM haven't had their own engine since the end of the 80s and have sold more cars per annum in the last decade than almost total production previously so I don't think the market cars at all outside of the UK. So long as Sheik Igor Ping still views it as a product to maintain the vital new money task of informing random strangers that he is considerably richer than yow, it'll all be fine.

why reinvent the wheel, AMG engines have done Mr Pagani no harm and i do not recall many people saying the M F1 was a pile of ploop because they used a BMW engine

I agree. Nothing wrong with the deal at all. As I mentioned above, few owners will care. As their production is smaller and more volatile than they had hoped and they have spent their investment capital in other areas they have little choice but to buy in you can't do a lot better than AMG. The downside risk is that you do ultimately lose control of what unit is in your product as you are just getting what they are producing at the time and unlikely to be able to demand a bespoke product. As an extreme example, if AMG decided that the next engine after this downsized V8 will be a 1.5L 3 pot then that is what AM will have to take, especially as part of the deal is an equity buy-in which would make it harder still to jump ship if your supplier changed their product away from your products core ethos/appeal etc.

[XJ Flyer]

Max_Torque said:

XJ Flyer said:

Torque increases with stroke because it provides more leverage for the piston at the crank.Therefore just an increase in stroke will increase BMEP all else being equal.Power is just a measure of torque x engine speed and stroke can be increased to relatively high amounts without having any real detrimental effect on engine speed.So more torque same engine speed = more power.Which is why the 6.0 L V12 XJRS and the Triumph 2.5 6 are more powerful engines than the 5.3 V 12 or 2.0 6 using exactly the same bore size.

Have another think about that^^^ and get back to me ;-)

I don't need to think about it because it's why I ran a 2.5 Triumph in the 1970's not a 2.0 litre one and it's the basis of why I bothered with heaving the big heavy 5.3 V12 lump out of my XJ to replace it with a 6.0 litre one.

In the case of the Triumph the difference in power was around 35 bhp admittedly with the 2.5 running with a multiple throttle injection system.Although there was still a significant power advantage when running with a similar type twin carb set up in the case of the later type 2.5 S.

In the case of the Jag the difference is around 30 bhp from the same bore size produced at slightly less rpm and with a lower compression ratio both in standard form.Thereby proving that power output isn't dependent on bore size.

[XJ Flyer]

DonkeyApple said:

XJ Flyer said:

DonkeyApple said:

Mosdef said:

If an ageing V12, or any V12 for that matter, could be made as efficient as a more modern V8, I'm sure AML wouldn't be bothering with AMG. Doesn't it just come down to the below?

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehic...

I can't see how any small manufacturer will get round this on their own.

Re: supercharger v turbocharger, there is a difference but both give an undesirable result in my opinion: poor throttle response and far too much torque low down.

The real issue at AM is that while all other prestige firms have been investing in their next gen power plants to be globally compliant for all vital sales markets and forming partnerships that allow better corporate averages or populist models to generate production volumes AM have spent the last decade moving as much capital as possible from the balance sheet to various pension plans. So much so that they haven't enough money or revenue to do anything other than import a drivetrain going forward.

But, let's be really honest, AM haven't had their own engine since the end of the 80s and have sold more cars per annum in the last decade than almost total production previously so I don't think the market cars at all outside of the UK. So long as Sheik Igor Ping still views it as a product to maintain the vital new money task of informing random strangers that he is considerably richer than yow, it'll all be fine.

If they haven't had 'their own engine' since the old V8 then exactly what/who else was it that has used their V12.While the fact is,like Jaguar,Aston was never intended to be a large 'volume' producer.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 16th June 14:46

You ought to ask the chap who signed the 5 year supply extension with Ford this time last year.

So Aston decide to use a,unique to them,V12 that's ( reportedly ) based on redesigning a Ford V6 to double the amount of cylinders and then sub the manufacturing process out to Ford too.A bit like Jaguar did with it's engine manufacturing side after closing down it's own Radford engine manufacturing plant.However the fact is you won't find either engine in a Ford product because they are/were specifically Aston and Jaguar engine designs respectively.

[DonkeyApple]

XJ Flyer said:

DonkeyApple said:

XJ Flyer said:

DonkeyApple said:

Mosdef said:

If an ageing V12, or any V12 for that matter, could be made as efficient as a more modern V8, I'm sure AML wouldn't be bothering with AMG. Doesn't it just come down to the below?

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehic...

I can't see how any small manufacturer will get round this on their own.

Re: supercharger v turbocharger, there is a difference but both give an undesirable result in my opinion: poor throttle response and far too much torque low down.

The real issue at AM is that while all other prestige firms have been investing in their next gen power plants to be globally compliant for all vital sales markets and forming partnerships that allow better corporate averages or populist models to generate production volumes AM have spent the last decade moving as much capital as possible from the balance sheet to various pension plans. So much so that they haven't enough money or revenue to do anything other than import a drivetrain going forward.

But, let's be really honest, AM haven't had their own engine since the end of the 80s and have sold more cars per annum in the last decade than almost total production previously so I don't think the market cars at all outside of the UK. So long as Sheik Igor Ping still views it as a product to maintain the vital new money task of informing random strangers that he is considerably richer than yow, it'll all be fine.

If they haven't had 'their own engine' since the old V8 then exactly what/who else was it that has used their V12.While the fact is,like Jaguar,Aston was never intended to be a large 'volume' producer.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 16th June 14:46

You ought to ask the chap who signed the 5 year supply extension with Ford this time last year.

So Aston decide to use a,unique to them,V12 that's ( reportedly ) based on redesigning a Ford V6 to double the amount of cylinders and then sub the manufacturing process out to Ford too.A bit like Jaguar did with it's engine manufacturing side after closing down it's own Radford engine manufacturing plant.However the fact is you won't find either engine in a Ford product because they are/were specifically Aston and Jaguar engine designs respectively.

They don't sub the work out to Ford. It's owned by Ford. AM have a licensing agreement which includes putting their name over a building that is owned by Ford at a Ford plant in Germany.

Last June they negotiated an extension to this 2007 lease agreement for another 5 years for both Ford units. However, by December they had negotiated an alternative licensing deal with AMG to lease their tech, although this time seemingly without any exclusivity.

The Tadek Marek v8 from the mid/late 60s was the last engine AM owned. And they switched that off in 99. They even put a few in DB7s.

[Mastodon2]

dinkel said:

Sound: I never heart anyone complain about the F40. Or the Renault 5 Turbo.

Two cars made 30 or so years ago when turbocharging was done for power, not efficiency. There are some nice sounding turbocharged cars these days, but they're low volume supercars, and they still don't sound as good as their NA counterparts.

If you've heard any of the new German turbos in person, you'd be less than optimistic for this one sounding any good. I remember a lot of bumf in the press about how the F10 M5 and the M6 sounded great despite the turbocharging, which turned out to be a pack of lies, they sound rubbish out of the showroom, inviting you to spend a chunk on new exhausts (if you don't mind your warranty going, or you plump for a big bucks AC Schnitzer through the dealer, the majority of buyers won't) and still end up with something that sounds flat and dull.

Remember how good we used to have it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCtJVbJEHZg

[XJ Flyer]

DonkeyApple said:

They don't sub the work out to Ford. It's owned by Ford. AM have a licensing agreement which includes putting their name over a building that is owned by Ford at a Ford plant in Germany.

Last June they negotiated an extension to this 2007 lease agreement for another 5 years for both Ford units. However, by December they had negotiated an alternative licensing deal with AMG to lease their tech, although this time seemingly without any exclusivity.

The Tadek Marek v8 from the mid/late 60s was the last engine AM owned. And they switched that off in 99. They even put a few in DB7s.

I think it's the 'exclusivity' issue that's the relevant point.IE an Aston with a Merc engine in it as opposed to an Aston with an Aston,but Ford manufactured,engine in it.Having said that the AMG Merc V12 didn't do the Zonda any harm.But then again it was a Zonda exclusive AMG Merc engine by all accounts.

In which case it's not really about who makes it it's more a case of wether it's the best possible choice as designed and chosen solely by the relevant manafucturer regardless.In this case Aston.However going by that comparison a bigger,or at least same capacity,more powerful,forced induction V12 would seem more like progress,than going for a smaller V8 than they had in the 1970's.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 16th June 18:11

[DonkeyApple]

XJ Flyer said:

DonkeyApple said:

They don't sub the work out to Ford. It's owned by Ford. AM have a licensing agreement which includes putting their name over a building that is owned by Ford at a Ford plant in Germany.

Last June they negotiated an extension to this 2007 lease agreement for another 5 years for both Ford units. However, by December they had negotiated an alternative licensing deal with AMG to lease their tech, although this time seemingly without any exclusivity.

The Tadek Marek v8 from the mid/late 60s was the last engine AM owned. And they switched that off in 99. They even put a few in DB7s.

I think it's the 'exclusivity' issue that's the relevant point.IE an Aston with a Merc engine in it as opposed to an Aston with an Aston,but Ford manufactured,engine in it.Having said that the AMG Merc V12 didn't do the Zonda any harm.But then again it was a Zonda exclusive AMG Merc engine by all accounts.

In which case it's not really about who makes it it's more a case of wether it's the best possible choice as designed and chosen solely by the relevant manafucturer regardless.In this case Aston.However going by that comparison a bigger,more powerful,forced induction V12 would seem more like progress,than going for a smaller V8 than they had in the 1970's.

Indeed but sadly AMs production figures are too small for anyone to invest in any form of true exclusivity.

If they'd got anywhere near their projected volumes then they almost certainly wouldn't be in the situation of using the same unit as others. Bad business combined with changing terms conspire against them.